Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

hell, there they never avoid so to translate it; is it not an evident argument, that they know very well the proper signification, but of purpose 'they will never use it to their disadvantage in the questions of limbus, purgatory, Christ's descending into hell? chap. vii.

33.

Fulke. I have said before, there is no place in the Old FULKE, Testament, where sheol must needs signify that hell, in which are the damned, but the place may be reasonably and truly translated the grave: although, as in divers places by death is meant eternal death, so by grave is meant hell, or damnation. Concerning the questions of limbus, purgatory, and the descending of Christ into hell, they are nothing like for the last is an article of our faith, which we do constantly believe in the true understanding thereof; but the other are fables and inventions of men, which have no ground, in the scripture, but only a vain surmise, builded upon a wrong interpretation of the words of the scripture, as in the peculiar places shall be plainly declared.

34.

Annot. in

Martin. If further yet in this kind of controversy, Beza would be MARTIN, bold to affirm (for so he saith), if the grammarians would give him leave, that chebel with five points signifieth funem, no less than chebel with six Acts ii. 24. points; is he not wonderfully set to maintain his opinion, that will an change the nature of words, if he might, for his purpose?

תבל

That is, he

would trans

late, solutis

tis, not, soluinferni.

Fulke. Wonderfully, I promise you; for he translateth the word for all this, doloribus, and sayeth, Nihil tamen funíbus morausus sum mutare ex conjectura: "Yet I durst change no- tis doloribus thing upon conjecture." Annotat. in Acts ii. 243. You say, he FULKE, would change the nature of words. Nothing so; but if the 34. word might bear that signification, he thinketh it more agreeable to the Hebrew phrase, which the evangelist doth often follow. Is not this a great matter to make an evident mark of corruption?

35.

Martin. If passives must be turned into actives, and actives into MARTIN, passives, participles disagree in case from their substantives, or rather be plucked and separated from their true substantives, solecisms imagined, where the construction is most agreeable, errors devised to creep out of the margin, and such like; who would so presume in the text of holy scriptures, to have all grammar, and words, and phrases, and constructions at his commandment, but Beza and his like, for the advantage of

[3 "Quem Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus mortis." Beza. "Quem Deus suscitavit solutis doloribus inferni." Acts ii. 24. Vulg.] 9

[FULKE.]

FULKE, 35.

MARTIN, 36.

Acts iii. 21.

their cause?
this chapter.

See chap. v. numb. 6, and the numbers next following in

Fulke. But if all these be proved to be vain cavils and frivolous quarrels, as in the chap. v. numb. 6. and in the numbers following in this chapter it shall be plainly declared, then I hope all men of mean capacity and indifferent judgment will confess, that ignorance hath deceived you, malice hath blinded you, hatred of the truth hath overthrown you, the father of lies and slanders hath possessed you.

Martin. For example, St Peter saith, "Heaven must receive Christ." He translateth, "Christ must be contained in heaven," which Calvin déaodai1. himself misliketh, the Geneva English bible is afraid to follow, Illyricus the Lutheran reprehendeth: and yet M. Whitakers taketh the advantage Pag. 43. of this translation, to prove that Christ's natural body is so contained in heaven, that it cannot be upon the altar. For he knew that this was his master's purpose and intent in so translating. This it is, when the blind follow the blind, yea, rather, when they see and will be blind: for certain it is (and I appeal to their greatest Grecians) that howsoever it be taken for good in their divinity, it will be esteemed most false in their Greek schools, both of Oxford and Cambridge; and howsoever they may presume to translate the holy scriptures after this sort, surely no man, no not themselves, would so translate Demosthenes, for saving their credit and estimation in the Greek tongue. See chap. xvii. numb. 7, 8, 9.

FULKE,

36.

Fulke. Beza translateth quem oportet cœlo capi, Acts iii. 21. You say, "Heaven must receive Christ:" Beza saith, "Christ must be received of heaven." Call you this turning of actives into passives, and passives into actives? Or will you deny us the resolution of passives into actives, or actives into passives? What difference is there in sense between these propositions? Your purse containeth money, and money is contained in your purse: the church must receive all Christians, or all Christians must be received of the church. But Calvin, you say, misliketh this translation,

[ καὶ ἀποστείλῃ τὸν προκεχειρισμένον ὑμῖν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, ὃν δεῖ οὐρανὸν μὲν δέξασθαι ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων. Acts iii. 20, 21.

"Et miserit eum qui prædicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem cœlum recipere usque in tempora restitutionis omnium." Vulg.

"Et miserit eum qui ante prædicatus est vobis, Jesum Christum. Quem oportet quidem cœlo capi usque ad tempora restitutionis omnium." Beza.]

and the Geneva bible is afraid to follow it. Yet neither of them both misliketh this sense, nor can; for it is all one with that which you translate, "whom heaven must receive." Calvin only saith, the Greek is ambiguous, whether heaven must receive Christ, or Christ must receive heaven. But when you grant that heaven must receive Christ, you can not deny for shame of the world, but Christ must be received of heaven: wherefore you understand neither Calvin nor Illyricus, who speak of the other sense, "that Christ must receive heaven." And Master Whitaker, not of Beza's translation, but of the text, and even of your own translation, may prove, that Christ's natural body is contained in heaven. And as for your appeal to the greatest Grecians, and the Greek schools both of Oxford and Cambridge, [it] is vain and frivolous; for the least grammarians that be in any country schools are able to determine this question, whether these propositions be not all one in sense and signification, Ego amo te, and Tu amaris a me; "I love thee," or "thou art

2

loved of me." But it is strange divinity, that Christ should be contained in heaven. Verily, how strange soever it seemeth to Gregory Martin, it was not unknown to Gregory Nazianzen, as good a Grecian and as great a divine as he is. For in his second sermon Tepi vioù, not far from the beginning, he writeth thus of our Saviour Christ: Sei yàp αὐτὸν βασιλεύειν ἄχρι τοῦδε, καὶ ὑπὲρ οὐρανοῦ δεχθῆναι ἄχρι χρόνων αποκαταστάσεως. “For he must reign until then, and be received or contained of heaven until the times of restitution." Here you see Nazianzen citing this very place of Saint Peter, Acts iii., for the mean verb of active signification, doubteth not freely to use the passive verb in the same sense that Beza translateth the place, against which you declaim so tragically. And if you think it be such an heinous offence, to render passively in the same sense that which is uttered actively in the text, so that no man for his credit would so translate Demosthenes, as Beza doth Saint Luke; I pray you, what regard had you of your credit and estimation? when Matt. iv. you translate, out of Latin, Qui dæmonia habebant, "such as were possest;" and Luke ii. Ut profiterentur," to be enrolled."

[Greg. Naz. Oratio xxxvI. Opera. edit. Lutet. Parisiis 1609, p.

579.]

MARTIN, 37.

Pag. 34, 35.
Against

D. Sand.

308.

Belike you have a privilege to do what you list, when other men may not do that which is lawful.

Martin. But yet there is worse stuff behind: to wit, the famous place Luke xxii., where Beza translateth thus, Hoc poculum novum testamentum per meum sanguinem, qui pro vobis funditur1: whereas in the Greek, in all copies without exception, he confesseth that in true grammatical construction it must needs be said, quod pro vobis funditur; and therefore he saith it is either a plain solacophanes (and according to that presumption he boldly translateth), or a corruption crept out of the margin into the text. And as for the word solacophanes, we understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers: but M. Fulke saith, that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent Rocke, pag. authors; and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue. He sendeth us first to Budee's commentaries, where there are examples of solacophanes: and, indeed, Budee taketh the word for that which may seem a solecism, and yet is an elegancy, and all his examples are of most fine and figurative phrases, but, alas! how unlike to that in St Luke! And here M. Fulke was very foully deceived, thinking that Beza and Budee took the word in one sense: and so taking his mark amiss, as it were a counter for gold, where he found solacophanes in Budee, there he thought all was like to St Luke's sentence, and that which Beza meant to be a plain solecism, he maketh it like to Budee's elegancies. Much like to those good searchers in Oxford (as it is said, masters of arts,) who, having to seek for papistical books in a lawyer's study, and seeing there books with red letters, cried out, Mass books, Mass books: whereas it was the code or some other book of the civil or canon law.

See Comm.
Bud. Figu-

rata constructio, or σχήμα Αττικόν.

FULKE, 37.

Fulke.

This must needs be a famous place for the real presence of Christ's blood in the sacrament, that never one of the ancient or late writers observed, until within these few years. But let us see what fault Beza hath committed in translation. The last word in the verse, TÓ ÉкXVvóμevov, he hath so translated, as it must be referred to the word T aquari, signifying blood, with which in case it doth not agree. That is true; but that he confesseth that all Greek copies without exception have it as it is commonly read, it is false: only he saith, Omnes tamen ve

[Beza's words are, "Hoc poculum est novum illud testamentum per sanguinem meum, qui pro vobis effunditur." Edit. 1556 and

"All our old

tusti nostri codices ita scriptum habebant. Greek copies had it so written." He speaketh only of his own, or such as he had, and not of all without exception; for since he wrote this note, there came to his hands one other ancient copy, both of Greek and Latin, in which this whole verse of the second delivery of the cup is clean left out. For immediately after these words, τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ σῶμά μov, πλην idoù ǹ xeip doth follow; and so in the Latin, Veruntamen ecce manus qui tradet me, &c. Moreover, Beza telleth you, that Basil in his Ethicks, op. κá. citing this whole text of St Luke, readeth, τῷ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνομένῳ in the dative case, agreeing with T aquari, the word next before. By which it is manifest, that in S. Basil's time the reading was otherwise than now it is in most copies. Again, where you say, he confesseth that in true grammatical construction it must needs be said, Quod pro vobis funditur, his words are not so; but that those words, if we look to the construction, cannot be referred to the blood, but to the cup, which in effect is as much as you say: 'His judgment indeed is of these words, as they are now read, that either it is a manifest solacophanes, or else an addition out of the margin into the text; and as for the word solacophanes, you understand him that he meaneth a plain solecism and fault in grammar, and so doth M. Whitakers.' How you understand him, it is not material, but how he is to be understood indeed. M. Whitakers, whom you call to witness, doth not so understand him, but sheweth that if he had called it a plain solecism, he had not charged St Luke with a worse fault than Jerome chargeth St Paul. But what reason is there that you or any man should understand Beza, by solacophanes, to mean a plain solecism? Think you he is so ignorant, that he knoweth not the difference of the one from the other? or so negligent of his terms, that he would confound those whom he knoweth so much to differ? "But Master Fulke (say you) saith that he meaneth no such thing, but that it is an elegancy and figurative speech, used of most eloquent authors: and it is a world to see, and a Grecian must needs smile at his devices, striving to make St Luke's speech here, as he construeth the words, an elegancy in the Greek tongue." Thus you write; but if I give not all Grecians and Latinists just oc

« PoprzedniaDalej »